Comrades! With regard to my report, I must today pose the question somewhat unusually. The fact is that my real report is my article on the immediate tasks of Soviet power[25], which appeared in two newspapers on Sunday, and I permit myself to assume that the majority of those present are acquainted with it.

And therefore I would consider that at the present time I have no need to repeat here what was said in the report and I can limit myself only to additions and clarifications to the report. I think that the most appropriate form for such clarifications would now be polemics, because the question that I touched upon in these theses on the immediate tasks is nothing other than a development of the resolution already adopted by the All-Russian Extraordinary Congress in Moscow on March 15—a resolution that did not limit itself to the burning question of peace at that time, but also noted the principal task of the current moment: the organizational task, the task of self-discipline, the task of struggle against disorganization[26].

And it is on this basis, it seems to me, that our political currents or the principal streams of our political currents have emerged quite distinctly over recent times; and therefore in polemical form, I think, one can most clearly confirm what I tried to outline in positive form in the article on the immediate tasks.

Comrades! If you look at the political currents of contemporary Russia, before you will first arise the task—and here, as always, in order not to be mistaken in one's assessment—to try to look at all the political currents taken together, for only thus, only under this condition can we protect ourselves from errors in drawing particular examples. It is understandable that examples can be found in any quantity to confirm any proposition whatsoever. But that is not the point. Only under such a condition can we attempt to arrive at clarifying the connection between the fates of political currents in the country, taking these currents as a whole, and the fates of class interests, which always manifest themselves in large, serious, and significant political currents if we examine these currents as a whole, in their entire totality.

And so, casting a glance at the major political currents in Russia, I think one cannot dispute that they divide clearly and indisputably into three large groups. In the first we have the entire bourgeoisie, welded together solidly and firmly as one person, in the most decisive, one might say, headlong "opposition" against Soviet power. Of course, the word "opposition," as applied to this instance, can only be used in quotation marks, because in reality here we have a furious struggle, which has now drawn to the side of the bourgeoisie all those petty bourgeois parties that were in agreement with Kerenskii during the revolution—namely, the Mensheviks, the Renovationists,[*] and the Right Socialist Revolutionaries, who surpassed even the bourgeoisie in the fury of their attacks against us, for it is well known that very often the fury of attacks and the loudness of barking is inversely proportional to the strength of the political element from which the furious attacks emanate. (Applause.)

The entire bourgeoisie and all their mouthpieces and all their servants, of the type of Chernov and the type of Tsereteli, all of them converged in furious attacks against Soviet power. All of them yearn for that pleasant perspective which their friends, their political allies on the Ukraine, were putting into practice: to conclude such a peace as would allow them, with the help of the German bayonet and the domestic bourgeoisie, to suppress Bolshevik influence. This is far too well known. A fine example of such friends we have in the person of Chkhenkeli in the Caucasus. Everyone remembers this from the newspapers.

It is understandable that the proletariat, having seized power and begun to carry out the dictatorship of the working people, the dictatorship of the poorest against the exploiters, could not have met anything else.

On one side, we have one flank, one front, full of unity. If we are sometimes presented with dreams of a unified democratic front, then I, at least, in those rare moments when I happen to pick up bourgeois newspapers, in that rare instance when one experiences the pleasure of reading such newspapers as "Our Age," "The People's Cause," and so forth, all these newspapers, even merely skimming through them, I always think: what more do you need for "unity of a democratic front"?

All this unity of a "democratic front" they have in the fullest measure, and we can only rejoice at this unity, because, insofar as the crumbs of this bourgeois journalism reach the masses, this is not unity of a democratic front, but unity of attacks on the Bolsheviks. And this unity of front, from Miliukov to Martov, deserved that we present it with a certificate of commendation on May 1 for fine propaganda in favor of the Bolsheviks.

Comrades! If you take the other, opposite camp, in this camp you now see only our party, the party of Communist Bolsheviks. Events unfolded in such a way that our allies during the greater part of the post-October period—the Left Socialist Revolutionaries—have at the present time withdrawn from formal participation in power. Their recent congress marked particularly vividly extreme vacillation in this party{99}, and this has now become more evident than ever, although this party also expresses in the press complete disorientation and complete vacillation.

If you were to decide to draw a curve showing how this party from February 1917—of course, before the split of the Socialist Revolutionaries between the Left and Right wings—if you were to decide to draw a curve showing month by month which side this party took, the side of the proletariat or the side of the bourgeoisie, if over the course of a year you were to draw this curve, you would get a curve something like a bill of lading, looking over which everyone would say to himself: the fever here is astounding, astoundingly persistent!

Indeed, such constant and continuous vacillations as this party has undergone are hardly matched by any other party in the history of the revolution.

And so, if we take all these three fundamental currents and look at them, it will become clear to us that such a grouping is not accidental, that it fully confirms what we Bolsheviks had occasion to point out in 1915 already from abroad, when the first reports began to arrive that the revolution in Russia was growing, that it was inevitable—and when we had occasion to give answers to the questions: in what position would the party find itself if even during the war events placed it in power. We had occasion to say then: it is possible that the revolution will achieve a decisive victory; from the class point of view this is possible if, in the decisive moments, at the decisive points, the guiding elements of the petty bourgeoisie waver in the direction of the proletariat[27]; and that is precisely how it came about, and that is how the history of the Russian revolution is unfolding and continues to unfold now. Of course, from these vacillations of petty bourgeois elements we cannot in the slightest derive any grounds for pessimism, let alone despair—and it is understandable that the revolution in a country which turned against imperialist war before other countries, a revolution in a backward country, which events to a considerable degree, thanks to the backwardness of this country, placed, of course, for a short time and, of course, on particular questions, ahead of the other, more advanced countries—it is understandable that this revolution is inevitably condemned to experience the most difficult, the most painful, and in the near future the most joyless moments—that in such moments it will hold its front and its adherents, that it will get along without waverers—this would be entirely unnatural; it would mean taking no account whatsoever of the class character of the upheaval, the nature of parties and political groupings.

And so, if we now look at the sum total of political currents in Russia from the point of view of the tasks of the moment, from the point of view of how the present immediate and foremost tasks confront us—the tasks of organization, discipline, of accounting and control—then we will see that there is not the slightest attempt to evaluate this task on the merits in the camp united by the "unified democratic front" from Miliukov to Martov. There is none and cannot be, because there is only one malevolent desire—and the more malevolent, the more honorable for us—to find some possibility, or hint, or dream of overthrowing Soviet power, and nothing more. Unfortunately, it is precisely the representatives of the Left Socialist Revolutionary party who most of all expressed, despite the enormous devotion to the revolution demonstrated by a whole series of members of this party who always displayed much initiative and energy—it is precisely they who displayed vacillation on the question of the immediate tasks of the current moment in the sense of proletarian discipline, accounting, organization, and control—those tasks which for socialists became natural when power was conquered, when the military attacks from the Kerenskiis and Krasnovs to the Kornilovs, Gegechkori, and Alekseevs were repulsed.

Now, when we have for the first time entered into the very heart of the course of the revolution, the question is whether proletarian discipline and organization will triumph, or whether the spontaneity of petty bourgeois proprietors, which in Russia is particularly strong, will triumph.

The main battlefield for struggle against us for our opponents from the petty bourgeois camp is the sphere of internal policy and economic construction; their instrument is the undermining of everything that the proletariat decrees and strives to implement in the matter of organizing a systematized socialist economy. Here the petty bourgeois spontaneity—the spontaneity of petty proprietors and unbridled egoism—emerges as a decisive enemy of the proletariat.

And in this curve which the petty bourgeoisie has traced through all the events of the revolution, we see its sharpest departure from us; naturally, it is here, in this camp, that we have the principal opposition to the immediate and current tasks of the moment in the more precise sense of the word; here is opposition by people who do not refuse us principled agreement, who support us on questions more essential than those on which they criticize—opposition combined with support.

We will not be surprised if from the pages of Left Socialist Revolutionary publications we encounter such statements as the one I encountered in "Banner of Labor"{100} of April 25. And here is what was written in it: "Right-wing Bolsheviks—ratifiers" (a terribly contemptuous epithet). What if one were to reverse the epithet regarding the militants? Would it make a less terrible impression? Well, if one has to encounter such currents in Bolshevism, this says something. I happened on April 25 to look at some theses in a newspaper that gave us a political characterization. When I read this thesis, I thought: could there be someone from the newspaper of the "Left Communists," "The Communist," or from their journal{101}—there is so much here that is similar; but I was disappointed, because it turned out that this was Yusuv's thesis, printed in the newspaper "Forward"{102}. (Laughter, applause.)

You see, comrades, when we have occasion to observe such political phenomena as the solidarity of "Banner of Labor" with a particular current in Bolshevism, or with certain formulated Menshevik theses of that very party which pursued a policy of bloc with Kerenskii, that very party in which Tsereteli implemented agreement with the bourgeoisie, we encounter attacks that correspond exactly to those we hear from the group of "Left Communists" and from their new journal—then something is amiss. Then something casts light on the actual significance of these attacks, and attention should be paid to them already because here we have the opportunity to evaluate the principal tasks of Soviet power in disputes with people with whom it is interesting to dispute because we have here both Marxist theory, we take account of the significance of the events of the revolution and the indisputable desire to get at the truth. Here the fundamental basis for a dispute on the merits is provided by devotion to socialism and the indisputable decision to stand on the side of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, whatever errors, in the opinion of this or that person, group, or current, may have been made in this struggle against the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.

If I say that it is interesting to dispute with them, then I understand by an interesting dispute with them not polemics, but that which questions this: the dispute concerns itself with the most essential, fundamental question of our times. It is not accidental that disputes are conducted along this line. Along this line, at the present time, the fundamental task objectively lies—the task of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, which is dictated by the actual conditions of Russia and which must be pursued in every way amid an abundance of the most varied petty bourgeois currents, amid the entire necessity for the proletariat to tell itself: on this point it cannot make any concessions, for the socialist revolution, having begun by wresting power from the bourgeoisie and continuing by breaking every instance of the bourgeoisie's resistance, decisively brings to the fore the questions of proletarian discipline and organization of the working people, and the ability to approach work with strict businesslike character and knowledge of the interests of large-scale industry. These questions the proletariat must solve practically, otherwise it will suffer defeat. Here lies the principal, real difficulty of the socialist revolution. Precisely for this reason it is so interesting, so important, in the historical and political sense of the word, to dispute with the representatives of the group of "Left Communists," despite the fact that, taking their position and theory, examining it, we see in it nothing, I repeat—and I will now prove this—except those same petty bourgeois vacillations. Comrades from the group of "Left Communists," however they may call themselves, above all undermine their own theses. I assume that the vast majority of those gathered are acquainted with their views, because in Bolshevik circles we have in essence discussed them since the beginning of March, and those who did not interest themselves in major political literature could not fail to know about them, could not fail to discuss them in connection with the disputes that unfolded at the recent All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

And so we see, above all, in their theses the very same thing we now see in the entire Socialist Revolutionary party, the very same thing we now see both in the Right camp and in the camp of the bourgeoisie from Miliukov to Martov, for whom these present hardships are especially burdensome from the point of view of Russia's loss of its great-power status, from the point of view of its transformation from an old nation, from an oppressing state into an oppressed country, from that point of view where one must decide not on paper but in fact the question of whether the hardships of the path to socialism, the hardships of the begun socialist revolution, are worth it for the country to have even endured the heaviest trials in terms of its statehood, in terms of its national independence.

Here the deepest division lies between those for whom that state independence and autonomy, which for all the bourgeoisie is an ideal and a limit, its holy of holies—a limit that shall not be transgressed, and to encroach upon which is a negation of socialism—and those who say that the socialist revolution in the epoch of the fierce war of imperialists for the division of the world cannot do without the gravest defeats for many nations that were previously considered oppressive. And that, no matter how hard this may be for humanity, on all such trials conscious socialists, genuine socialists, will go.

It is on this basis, the most unacceptable basis of all, on this basis that the Left Socialist Revolutionaries wavered the most, and it is precisely on this basis that we see the greatest vacillations among the "Left Communists."

Now, in their theses, which, as we know, they discussed together with us on April 4{103}, and which they published on April 20, they keep returning to the question of peace.

They devote the greatest attention to evaluating the question of peace and thus attempt to prove that peace is a manifestation of the psychology of a worn-out and declassed mass.

To what extent their arguments are comic when they cite their figures: 12 voted against and 28 for the conclusion of peace{104}. But is it not necessary, if one gathers the figures, if one recalls the voting of a month and a half ago, to take figures closer at hand? If one ascribes political significance to this voting, is it not necessary to recall the voting of the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets{105}, before saying that the healthy south was against peace, while the weary, declassed, industrially-weakened north was supposedly for peace? Is it not necessary to recall the voting of the majority faction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which not even a tenth voted against peace? If one recalls figures and ascribes political significance to them, then one must take the political voting as a whole, and then you will see immediately that parties which had learned certain slogans, which made these slogans into a fetish, found themselves on the side of the petty bourgeoisie, while the mass of the working and exploited—the mass of workers, soldiers, and peasants—did not reject peace.

And now, when along with criticism of this peace position they present to us the idea that supposedly a weary, declassed mass achieved this, when we clearly see that it was precisely the declassed intelligentsia that was against peace, when they give us an assessment of events which I read in the newspapers—this fact shows us that on the question of the conclusion of peace the majority of our party was absolutely right, that when we were told that the candle is not worth the game, that all imperialists have already united against us, that they will strangle us all the same, will bring us to shame, and so forth—we all the same concluded peace. It not only seemed shameful to them, it seems worthless. We were told that you will get no respite. And when we answered: one cannot know how international relations will develop, but we know that among themselves the imperialist enemies are engaged in a fight, events confirmed this, and this was acknowledged by the group of Left Communists, our ideological and principled opponents, standing on the whole and in total on the point of view of communism.

This single phrase is full recognition of the correctness of our tactics and complete condemnation of those vacillations on the question of peace which most of all alienated from us a certain wing of our supporters, both the entire wing grouped in the Left Socialist Revolutionary party and the wing that was in our party, is in it, and, one can say with certainty, will remain in it, and which in its vacillations particularly vividly reveals the source of these vacillations. Yes, the peace to which we came is in the highest degree unstable, the respite which we obtained can be torn asunder any day both from the west and from the east—in this there is no doubt; our international position is so critical that we must strain all our forces to last as long as possible until the western revolution ripens, ripening much more slowly than we expected and desired, but indisputably ripening; it is indisputably absorbing and capturing more and more and more combustible material.

If we, as a separate detachment of world proletariat, were the first to move forward, it is not because this detachment is more strongly organized. No, it is weaker, less organized than others, but it would be the greatest absurdity and pedantry to reason, as many do: well yes, if the most organized had begun the work, and then the less organized followed, and then the third-rate organized, then we would all gladly appear as servants of the socialist revolution. But since it turned out not according to the book, since it appeared that the forward detachment was not supported by other detachments, then our revolution is condemned to destruction. But we say: no, our task is the modification of universal organization; our task, insofar as we are alone, is to preserve the revolution, to retain for it at least some fortress of socialism, however weak and moderate in scale, while the revolution ripens in other countries, while other detachments draw near. But to expect from history that it will move the socialist detachments of different countries in strict sequence and systematically means to have no conception of revolution or, in one's stupidity, to renounce support for the socialist revolution.

At the moment when we clarified for ourselves and proved that we have a firm position in Russia and that we do not have the strength against international imperialism, our task is one, our tactics are determined as tactics of maneuvering, waiting, and retreating. I know very well that these words cannot claim to be popular, that if they are appropriately twisted and placed in connection with the word "coalition," then a very wide road is opened for piquant comparisons, for all manner of reproaches and for all sorts of mockery, but however many arrows of wit our opponents—the bourgeoisie—on the right and our yesterday's friends on the left, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, and our—I am confident—yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's friends, the "Left Communists"—however many such arrows as they may hurl at this and whatever proofs of their petty bourgeois vacillations they may produce, they cannot refute these facts. Events have confirmed us, we obtained a respite only because on the West the imperialist carnage continues, and in the Far East imperialist competition blazes ever wider—only this explains the existence of the Soviet republic, hanging by the thinnest thread, to which at this political moment we cling. Of course, it is not paper, not a peace treaty that will protect us, nor the circumstance that we do not wish to war with Japan; it is true that it plunders, not constrained by any treaties or formalities—it is not a paper treaty or a "state of peace" that will protect us—it will be the continuing clash on the West between two "giants" of imperialism and our steadfastness that will protect us. We have not forgotten the fundamental Marxist lesson which the Russian revolution has so vividly confirmed: one must account for forces in the tens of millions; less than that is not counted in politics, politics discards it as a quantity of no significance; if one looks at the international revolution from this point of view, the matter is clearer than clear: a backward country can easily begin, because its opponent is rotten, because its bourgeoisie is unorganized, but to continue, it requires hundreds of thousands of times more caution, care, and steadfastness. In Western Europe it will be different, there it is immensely harder to begin, there it is immensely easier to continue. This cannot be otherwise, because there the organization and cohesion of the proletariat are immeasurably greater. And while we are alone, we, accounting for forces, must tell ourselves: our only chance, until the European revolution breaks out, which will free us from all difficulties, is our only chance—the continuation of the struggle between international imperialist giants; we assessed this chance correctly, we held this chance for several weeks, but it can burst tomorrow. From this the conclusion: in our foreign policy to continue what we began in March, which is formulated in the words: maneuver, retreat, wait. When in this Left "Communist" one encounters the words "active foreign policy," when the expression "defense of the socialist fatherland" is put in quotation marks meant to be ironic, then I say to myself: these people have understood absolutely nothing about the position of the western proletariat. If they call themselves "Left Communists," they lapse into the point of view of the small wavering bourgeoisie, which sees in the revolution the assurance of a peculiar order. International relations speak clearer than clear: a Russian who, proceeding from Russian forces, conceived the task of overthrowing international imperialism would be a man who had lost his mind. And while there, in the West, the revolution ripens, although it now ripens faster than yesterday, our task is only this: we, a detachment that found itself in the lead, contrary to our weakness, must do everything, use every chance, to maintain ourselves on the conquered positions. All other considerations must be subordinated to this—to use fully the chance so that the moment when international imperialism unites against us we postpone for several weeks; if we act in this way, we will be following a path which every conscious worker in European countries will approve, for he knows that what we learned only from 1905, and France and England learned over centuries—he knows how slowly the revolution grows in free society with united bourgeoisie, he knows that against such forces one must move an agitational bureau that will conduct propaganda in the true sense of the word, when we will stand side by side with the risen German, French, English proletariat. Until such time—however sad this may be, however much it may be repugnant to revolutionary traditions—the tactic is one and only one: wait, maneuver, and retreat.

And when they say we have no external international policy, then I say: any other policy either consciously or unconsciously lapses into playing the role of provocation and making Russia an instrument of alliance with imperialists of the type of Chkhenkeli or of the type of Semenov.

And we say: it is better to endure and suffer, to bear infinitely great national and state humiliations and hardships, but to remain at our post as the socialist detachment, having separated in consequence of events from the ranks of the socialist army and forced to wait until the socialist revolution in other countries comes to our aid. And it is coming to us for aid. Slowly, but it is coming. And the war now being waged on the West revolutionizes the masses more than before, and brings the hour of uprising closer.

The propaganda which until now was conducted said that imperialist war is the most criminal and reactionary war for conquest. But now it is confirmed that on the Western front, where hundreds of thousands and millions of French and German soldiers are waging carnage, the ripening of revolution cannot proceed other than faster than before, although this revolution proceeds more slowly than we expected.

I have dwelt on the question of foreign policy longer than I wished, but it seems to me that here we see clearly how, in essence, before us on the question of foreign policy lie two fundamental lines—the proletarian line, which says that socialist revolution is above all and higher than all, and one must consider whether it will soon arise on the West, and the other—the bourgeois line, which says that for it state great-power status and national independence are above all and higher than all.

On internal questions we see the very same thing from the group of "Left Communists," who repeat the fundamental arguments directed against us from the camp of the bourgeoisie. For example, the fundamental argument of the group of "Left Communists" against us is that there is notice of a right-Bolshevik deviation which threatens the revolution by directing it along the path of state capitalism.

Evolution toward state capitalism—here is the evil, here is the enemy with which they invite us to struggle.

And so, when I read these references to such enemies in the newspaper of the "Left Communists," I ask: what has become of these people, how can they, because of scraps of a book, forget reality? Reality says that state capitalism would be a step forward for us. If we could accomplish state capitalism in Russia in a short period of time, this would be a victory. How could they fail to see that the petty proprietor, petty capital, is our enemy? How could they see the chief enemy in state capitalism? In the transition from capitalism to socialism, they must not forget that our chief enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits, its customs, its economic position. The petty proprietor above all fears state capitalism, because he has one desire—to grab what he can, get more for himself, ruin, finish off the large landowners, the large exploiters. And in this the petty proprietor willingly supports us.

Here he is more revolutionary than the workers, because he has more animosity, more indignation, and therefore to finish off the bourgeoisie, he goes willingly, but not as a socialist, so that, having broken the bourgeoisie's resistance, he would begin the construction of a socialist economy on the principles of strict labor discipline, within the framework of rigorous organization, under conditions of proper control and accounting, but so that, grabbing what he can for himself, he would use for himself and for his own purposes the fruits of victory, not in the least interested in the interests of the state as a whole and the interests of the working class in its entirety.

What is state capitalism under Soviet power? At the present time, implementing state capitalism means putting into practice that accounting and control which capitalist classes put into practice. We have the model of state capitalism in Germany. We know that it proved superior to us. But if you give even a little thought to what it would mean in Russia, in Soviet Russia, to ensure the foundations of such state capitalism, then any person who has not lost his mind and has not stuffed his head with scraps of bookish truths must say that state capitalism for us is salvation.

I said that state capitalism would be salvation for us; if we had it in Russia, then the transition to complete socialism would be easy, would be in our hands, because state capitalism is something centralized, calculated, controlled, and socialized, and it is precisely this that we lack, we are threatened by the spontaneity of petty bourgeois sloppiness, which more than anything in the history of Russia and its economy has been prepared for, and which is precisely what prevents us from taking this step, on which the success of socialism depends. I permit myself to remind you that I had occasion to write my words on state capitalism several time before the upheaval, and it is blatant absurdity to frighten us with state capitalism. I will recall that in my pamphlet "The Impending Catastrophe"[28] I wrote then… (Reads.)

I wrote this about a revolutionary-democratic state, the state of Kerenskii, Chernov, Tsereteli, Kishkin and their ilk, about that state which stood on bourgeois ground and could not and did not deviate from it; I said then that state capitalism is a step toward socialism; I wrote this in September 1917, and now, in April 1918, after the proletariat seized power in October, when it proved its ability: many factories and plants have been confiscated, enterprises and banks have been nationalized, the military resistance of the bourgeoisie and saboteurs has been broken—now, when they frighten us with capitalism—this is such a laughable, so grotesquely absurd nonsense and fabrication that you wonder and ask yourself: how could people come to this? They forgot the trifle that in Russia we have a mass of petty bourgeoisie, which sympathizes with the destruction of the large bourgeoisie of all countries, but does not sympathize with accounting, socialization, and control—herein lies the danger to the revolution, here lies the unity of social forces which destroyed the great French revolution and could not fail to destroy it, and which can, if the Russian proletariat proves weak, destroy the Russian revolution—only this can do it. The petty bourgeoisie, as we see, saturates the entire public atmosphere with petty-proprietarian tendencies—strivings which are simply expressed in this: I took from the rich, and I care nothing for others.

Here lies the chief danger. If the petty bourgeoisie were subordinated to other class elements, were subordinated to state capitalism, then the conscious worker must welcome this with both hands, because state capitalism under the democracy of Kerenskii would be a step toward socialism, and under Soviet power it would be 3/4 of socialism—because the one who is the organizer of state-capitalist enterprises can be made our helper; but the "Left Communists" relate to this differently, they relate with disdain—and when we had our first meeting with the "Left Communists" on April 4, which among other things proves that this question from distant history, having long discussions, is already the past—I said that we must, if we correctly understand our tasks, learn socialism from the organizers of trusts.

These words of the "Left Communists" were terribly outraged about, and one of them—Comrade Osinskii—devoted his entire article to refuting these words. Here is what his arguments amount to.—After all, we do not want to teach them, but to learn from them.—We "right" Bolsheviks want to learn from the organizers of a trust, while the "Left Communists" want to teach{106}.—But what do you want to teach them? Perhaps socialism?—This—merchants, dealers, teach socialism? (Applause.) No, if you want, do this work, we will not help you, it is empty work.—We have nothing to teach these engineers, dealers, merchants.—There is nothing to teach them socialism.—If we had a bourgeois revolution, there would be nothing for us to learn from them—only perhaps to seize what you can and that's all, and there is nothing more to learn. —No, this is still not a socialist revolution.—This is what was in France in 1793, this is where there is no socialism, but only a prelude to socialism.

Landowners must be overthrown, the bourgeoisie must be overthrown, and millions of times the Bolsheviks are right before history, all their actions will be justified, all their struggle, violence against landowners and capitalists, expropriation, violent suppression of their resistance. On the whole, this was the greatest historical task, but it was only the first step. Here the matter is for what reason we suppressed them; for the purpose of saying that now, having finally suppressed them, we will bow to their capitalism? No, now we will learn from them, because we lack knowledge, because we do not have this knowledge. We have knowledge of socialism, but knowledge of organization on a scale of millions, knowledge of organization and distribution of products, and so forth—we do not have this. The old Bolshevik leaders did not teach us this. The Bolshevik party in its history cannot boast of this. We have not yet completed this course. And we say, let him be even a rank scoundrel, but if he organized a trust, if this merchant had dealings with organizing production and distribution for millions and tens of millions, if he possesses experience—we must learn from him. If we do not learn this from them, then we will not get socialism, then the revolution will remain at the stage to which it has reached. Only the development of state capitalism, only the careful organization of accounting and control, only the strictest organization and labor discipline will lead us to socialism. And without this there is no socialism. (Applause.)

We have nothing to undertake the laughable task of teaching the organizers of a trust—there is nothing to teach them. We need to expropriate them. There is no difficulty in that. (Applause.) We have sufficiently shown and proved this.

And to every workers' delegation with which I had occasion to deal, when it came to me and complained that the factory was shutting down, I said: do you wish your factory to be confiscated? Very well, we have decree blanks ready, we will sign them in one minute. (Applause.) But you must tell us: you managed to take production into your own hands and you calculated what you produce, you know the connection of your production with the Russian and international market? And here it turns out that they have not yet learned this, and nothing about this has been written in Bolshevik books, and nothing has been said in Menshevik books either.

The best off are those workers who are putting this state capitalism into practice: the leather workers, the textile workers, the sugar industry, because with the sobr